Background Falls are the leading cause of injuries among older adults, and trips and slips are major contributors to falls. Objective The authors sought to compare the effectiveness of adding a component of surface perturbation training to usual gait/balance training for reducing falls and fall-related injury in high-risk older adults referred to physical therapy. Design This was a multi-center, pragmatic, randomized, comparative effectiveness trial. Setting Treatment took place within 8 outpatient physical therapy clinics. Patients This study included 506 patients 65+ years of age at high fall risk referred for gait/balance training. Intervention This trial evaluated surface perturbation treadmill training integrated into usual multimodal exercise-based balance training at the therapist’s discretion versus usual multimodal exercise-based balance training alone. Measurements Falls and injurious falls were assessed with a prospective daily fall diary, which was reviewed via telephone interview every 3 months for 1 year. A total of 211/253 (83%) patients randomized to perturbation training and 210/253 (83%) randomized to usual treatment provided data at 3-month follow-up. At 3 months, the perturbation training group had a significantly reduced chance of fall-related injury (5.7% versus 13.3%; relative risk 0.43) but no significant reduction in the risk of any fall (28% versus 37%, relative risk 0.78) compared with usual treatment. Time to first injurious fall showed reduced hazard in the first 3 months but no significant reduction when viewed over the entire first year. Limitations The limitations of this trial included lack of blinding and variable application of interventions across patients based on pragmatic study design. Conclusion The addition of some surface perturbation training to usual physical therapy significantly reduced injurious falls up to 3 months posttreatment. Further study is warranted to determine the optimal frequency, dose, progression, and duration of surface perturbation aimed at training postural responses for this population.

Brief physiotherapy treatment for MSDs may have the potential to improve not only clinical status and pain as expected but also work function, psychological well-being and sickness absence. Further research is warranted to confirm these positive impacts and to endorse physiotherapy as an effective intervention in occupational settings and a useful component in rehabilitation and 'Fit for Work' programmes.

IND/GLY was estimated to be highly cost-effective compared to SFC in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who are not at high risk of exacerbations in the Singapore healthcare setting.

Four hundred and sixty nine patients were randomized to receive either 12 micrograms bd of eformoterol (Oxis, Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Kings Langley, U.K.) delivered via Turbohaler or 50 micrograms bd salmeterol (Serevent, Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd., Uxbridge, U.K.) via either the Accuhaler (Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd.) or pressurized metered dose inhaler (pMDI, Glaxo-Wellcome Ltd.) for 8 weeks. This was followed by a 4-week cross-over period when patients who had received salmeterol in the previous 8 weeks were given eformoterol and patients who had received eformoterol were given either salmeterol via the Accuhaler or pMDI to assess patient device and treatment preference. For the primary efficacy variable, the increase in peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate from run-in to 8 weeks, similar significant improvements were seen in all three treatment groups. Eformoterol Turbohaler (FT) achieved a greater increase in morning PEF than salmeterol Accuhaler (SA) from randomisation to 4 weeks; the increase shown in the eformoterol Turbohaler group was 28.9 1 min-1 compared to 19.91 min-1 for the salmeterol Accuhaler group. The addition of eformoterol Turbohaler 12 micrograms bd, to patients' existing asthma therapy was found to have a significantly more beneficial effect on the severity of patients' daytime asthma symptoms than had salmeterol Accuhaler 50 micrograms bd (P = 0.014). Eformoterol Turbohaler reduced the severity of daytime asthma symptoms by 42% after only 4 weeks of treatment. The patients in the eformoterol Turbohaler treated group experienced a higher percentage of days when they were symptom-free and did not use their short-acting bronchodilator to relieve symptoms (32.8, 24.1 and 28.0% in the FT, SA and SM groups, respectively). At 8 weeks there were no significant differences in any of these variables between the three groups. Patients in all the treatment groups gained an additional 1-1.5 nights undisturbed by asthma per week. The changes in sleep disturbance were not significantly different between the three treatment groups. In addition to the therapeutic benefits provided by eformoterol Turbohaler the device (Turbohaler) was the significant preference of patients given both Turbohaler and pMDI (P = 0.0168) and was also considered to be significantly more convenient to carry around than the Accuhaler (P < 0.0001). No other differences were found between the three devices. The results of this study demonstrate that the addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist is an effective tool for achieving the goals of asthma treatment. Eformoterol via the Turbohaler is at least as effective as salmeterol via either the Accuhaler or the pMDI in achieving these goals.

IntroductionRanibizumab and aflibercept are anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents licensed for the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). The aim of this study was to estimate, from a UK healthcare payer’s perspective, the cost-effectiveness of ranibizumab versus aflibercept in this indication.MethodsA Markov model was used to simulate the outcomes and costs of treating BRVO. Patient baseline characteristics and efficacy data for ranibizumab were obtained from the BRAVO trial. The relative efficacy of aflibercept was derived from a published network meta-analysis. Injection frequencies were derived from ranibizumab and aflibercept studies included in the network meta-analysis. Health states were defined by increments of 10 letters in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Patients could gain or lose a maximum of two health states between cycles. The first cycle was 6 months, followed by monthly cycles. Different utility values were assigned to the better-seeing and worse-seeing eyes based on BCVA. A 2-year treatment time frame and a lifetime time horizon were used. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were used to test the robustness of the model.ResultsThe lifetime cost per patient treated was £15,273 with ranibizumab and £17,347 with aflibercept. Ranibizumab was dominant over aflibercept, producing incremental health gains of 0.0120 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and cost savings of £2074. Net monetary benefit for ranibizumab at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY was £2314. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to variations in model parameters.ConclusionsRanibizumab provides greater health gains at a lower overall cost than aflibercept in the treatment of visual impairment due to macular edema secondary to BRVO. Ranibizumab is therefore cost-effective from a UK healthcare payer’s perspective.FundingNovartis Pharma AG, Basel, SwitzerlandElectronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-015-0279-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.